Suspicious?
 

I really don't like the the slab damage on this one.

Goodwin - 52 Mantle

http://www.goodwinandco.com/ItemImag...53-28a_lg.jpeg

A lot of surface wear for that grade.

haha...that's a lot of slab damage!!!!!

Look at the paper loss next to his ear. I don't recall ever seeing a card with that kind of damage grade so high.

Is one of those dust spots on the upper left the variation B missing pixel? Hard to tell.

I'd be suspicious too. Pair in the slab damage with the fact that the card looks closer to a 5 to me, I'd be skeptical.

Upper border possibly trimmed?

Mantle
 

I agree with all of the previous posts, seems strange.

Also, why is the card still in a GAI holder?? You would think the consignor and/or auction house would want it in a PSA or SGC holder. Odd indeed.

Tony

The Auction House Write_Up Description Author
 

Please give me his name ; I'd like to contact that wordsmith so I can have him do my obituary.

is this card even real?

Looks like a reprint to me. Has a lot of surface wear which makes it tougher to tell but in the legit versions I've seen the letter on his uniform and the bottom border are about the same color. Reprints the letter on his uniform is noticeably lighter than the black line.

i dont like the looks of the star studded rectangular box with his name in it.

Maybe it's a flash but the periphery looks odd...almost pasted on?

The back has a fair amount of wear as well. I don't think GAI would have even graded that card a 7.5. Looks like a cracked case and switched-out card IMO

Looks like a real card but the top and right side look trimmed therefore it should have received a Auth trimmed in my opinion. I believe that is what PSA and SGC would have graded it that's why it went to GAI.

Minimum bid is $10k, please excuse the banged up holder? No way...

Why would Goodwin not demand that this card be resubmitted to PSA, SGC, or Beckett before including this in the auction? I can only imagine their reputation would suffer the most if this turns out to be a case in which the current holder has been compromised and the card within has been altered (or is not genuine.)

Best regards,

Eric

Wow. Regardless of condition and grade, if I owned a 52 Mantle I damn sure would take better care of it than this. Heck I treat my 1989 Score better than that.

This is a good example of why I may never own a 52T Mickey.

When I can get (2) real good Babe Ruth cards for the same price??

I have everything but the '51 Bowman and '52 Topps and I will be sure to get the Bowman long before coming close to the Topps.

...and it's a Double Print too!

Just goes to show how Golden Mantle is in the hobby.

What happened?
 

Likely could have been submitted to PSA and/or SGC for grading with the caveat do not crack it unless it receives a minimum numeric grade. And it likely wouldn't have. Or maybe the owner made a call to the company just as the cracking process was beginning and came to an abrupt screeching halt. Oh the conspiracy theories. I know i would easily pass on this one...

definitely suspicious...esp in light of the goodwin/beckett joint venture...at the very least beckett should have regraded this card.

the fat that they didn't...leads me to be believe this card has a problem(s).

That offering is a mess and I wouldn't touch it. However if it's unaltered and would cross to a 4 someone could get a deal.

true
 

True story, but those are 2 significant IFs.

I wonder if the marks that appear to be on the surface of the card are actually on the holder. Goodwin's scans have the brightness and contrast turned up so much that sometimes surface flaws on the holder really show up. This part of the description leads me to believe this might be the case....
The reverse description also mentions no surface issues, although the scan looks like it's scuffed up. Could it be the holder? Looks like a phone call might clear it up if anyone is interested in bidding.

I still don't see what should be a more prominent missing pixel on the left side in variation B.

That's a good point, Peter.

Here's a MINT 9 copy of that variation with the "missing pixel" clearly shown and, as you said, it's non-existent on the Goodwin card...

http://www.psacard.com/Content/img/p...tle311_9xl.jpg


And here's an example of a card with the marks on the holder being magnified by the Goodwin scan (this is the scan from the Goodwin page and I remember confirming with Bill that the white marks were not on the actual card)

http://www.goodwinandco.com/ItemImag...42-53a_lg.jpeg

Be careful of GAI. There have been several instances where GAI have been sent to other third party graders and have came back as not authentic. I wont touch them personally (even auto cert) with a 10 foot poll.

David

That's what I was thinking. I know some GAI stuff is legit, but I'm surprised they would even take something like this on without a changeover to PSA/SGC. Some might think it's overboard, but I wouldn't buy any GAI stuff for anything involving anywhere near that much money.

Did someone want to do the "paint shaker" experiment on the GAI holder?

I have purchased one thing that was GAI cert but I felt comfortable with because I knew the autograph in and out. Stuff from the early 2000s is generally accepted as authentic but when they ran into money troubles around 2010 they started pumping out all kinds of fakes. With them please do your homework.

Maybe it's just my screen. However, there seems to be something unusual going on with the bottom of the black box surrounding Mantle's facsimile autograph. Near the center (again, this is along the bottom) the black line seems to exhibit characteristics of half-tone printing.

Shouldn't the black be solid?

Anyone Who has been active in the hobby for more than a few seconds knows that GAI is suspect. Many of us have purchased GAI cards and have had them turn out fine...but you are rolling the dice for certain.

The facts are the case is beaten to piss. It appears to be over graded...and that the only reason for not reentombing it is because the grade will suffer dramatically.

From where I am sitting this does not seem like a very intelligent move for a major auction house...let alone one that is Co-owned by a grading company.

Eric, on the B type card, that box is not as clean as the A version.

http://bbcemporium.com/1952-topps-mi...terfeit-guide/

I think Pete is right in that this card would be downgraded significantly if it had been sent to PSA/SGC - the back is even more obvious to me than the front.

It's been withdrawn from the auction.

Card looks like a real copy that's been trimmed on the top and right side, as some others have mentioned.

That being said, there's one aspect of the card I can't wrap my head around. It's clearly a type B Mantle, and has all the features to go with it, EXCEPT the telltale missing pixel. Despite all the wear on the surface, it's very clear that the missing pixel (which is large and has a distinct shape) is itself "missing" from the card.

The fact that there's no missing pixel would be the only reason I have to believe the card is fake. That being said, if it is fake, then it's far and away the best repro I've ever laid my eyes on.